Philosophy of Science 60 (2):183-203 (1993)
|Abstract||This paper sketches a taxonomy of forms of substantivalism and relationism concerning space and time, and of the traditional arguments for these positions. Several natural sorts of relationism are able to account for Newton's bucket experiment. Conversely, appropriately constructed substantivalism can survive Leibniz's critique, a fact which has been obscured by the conflation of two of Leibniz's arguments. The form of relationism appropriate to the Special Theory of Relativity is also able to evade the problems raised by Field. I survey the effect of the General Theory of Relativity and of plenism on these considerations|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Robert Rynasiewicz (1992). Rings, Holes and Substantivalism: On the Program of Leibniz Algebras. Philosophy of Science 59 (4):572-589.
J. R. Lucas (1990). Spacetime and Electromagnetism: An Essay on the Philosophy of the Special Theory of Relativity. Oxford University Press.
Nick Huggett (2008). Why the Parts of Absolute Space Are Immobile. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):391-407.
David J. Baker (2005). Spacetime Substantivalism and Einstein's Cosmological Constant. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1299-1311.
Edward Slowik (2009). Newton's Metaphysics of Space: A “Tertium Quid” Betwixt Substantivalism and Relationism, or Merely a “God of the (Rational Mechanical) Gaps”? Perspectives on Science 17 (4):pp. 429-456.
Robert DiSalle (1992). Einstein, Newton and the Empirical Foundations of Space Time Geometry. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (3):181 – 189.
Carl Hoefer (1998). Absolute Versus Relational Spacetime: For Better or Worse, the Debate Goes On. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (3):451-467.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads155 ( #2,365 of 549,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #6,811 of 549,087 )
How can I increase my downloads?